Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s appeal process for a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because the injustice claimed is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s appeal process regarding a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
2. Mr X said the matter caused him frustration and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council issued Mr X a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for a parking contravention. Mr X appealed the PCN to the Council.
7. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s appeal and explained the timescale for providing payment was suspended while it considered his evidence. It said if it rejected his appeal, he would have 14 days from the date of rejection to pay a lower fine.
8. The Council then sent Mr X a letter asking for additional evidence. Within that letter, the Council told Mr X if he did not send the evidence but still wished to pay the reduced fee, he had 14 days to do so from the date of the letter.
9. Mr X wrote to the Council the following day asking for clarification about the timescales for the reduced payments. He provided additional evidence and complained. He said the letter had caused him distress and uncertainty.
10. Two days later, the Council cancelled the PCN. In its complaint response, the Council explained the appeals process and said it had followed this correctly.

Analysis

11. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
12. Mr X’s claimed injustice, that the letter sent informing him he had 14 days to pay the reduced fee while the Council was considering his appeal caused him distress, is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.
13. While Mr X may have experienced some uncertainty during the three days the Council considered his information, it cancelled the PCN in any case.
14. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman